Police breaking the law and falsifying reports

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon
The police unlawfully entered our home, unlawfully arrested people, gave no miranda warnings that were to be given, the police falsified the police report, verbally abused and threatened the people in our home for 3 hours. There are 8 other witnesses to this incident.

We retained an attonery that knows they have done these things and believes us but, states that he knows what they will say in court ( they will lie), the judge will back the police unless we are willing to make a gray area showing it must have been a misunderstanding then he would not be directly accusing his police force and he may suppress the alligations. Indicated we should just take a plea, ect... Never know what way it will go but usually the judge will back where his funding comes from. Why would a judge do this and whom does he answer to? We have been informed that the one office was just put back on the force after being on probation, and the other is a reserve that was a full time officer but let go due to the fact that he didn't know his job. How do we find out why the 1 was on probation and why the other is only a reserve now. Did either one of the things have anything to do with the same situation we are in. We also know that the call the the police that evening was falsifed. I could go on and on but this is the just of things.

Any one that would read the report would know that something is just not right with the whole inccident.

We need some help, advice on how to deal with this situation or are we just suppose to give in and let them be rouge officers and continue to do these things to whom ever they want.

We have another pre-trial conference on March 11, 2010 any help we would be greatful for.

Need more info??

With the response I was given I can simply say, have you ever dealt with an attorney that doesn"t have an alternative agenda?

If you need the information I can certianly provide it. I was under the inpression that since I do live in the USA their might be someone that has been in the same situation that just might give us some insight on how to deal with corrupt police, a judge that isn't going to call his officers liers rather they are right or wrong and a lawyer that says if we can show that there is a gray area of just a misunderstanding that the judge may suppress the case.

Are we suppose to just find some gray area and not make the police be accountable for their actions, behavior, and simply stated gross misconduct of the position they hold to protect and serve?

What makes you think Miranda warnings were required? (Note: About 90% of police contacts and even arrests will never require Miranda.

the police falsified the police report,

What makes you think some officer or officers knowingly and intentionally produced a false record of the events?

verbally abused and threatened the people in our home for 3 hours. There are 8 other witnesses to this incident.

And all of these witnesses have law degrees sufficient to say with certainty that what they saw was unlawful? Or, are they all just guessing.

What someone BELIEVES is unlawful or improper does not make it so.

Your attorney has a better handle on the law than you do. But, if you believe that you are not guilty of the accusations and your rights were violated, then do not accept the plea and force the state to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, if you ARE guilty, but are simply crying "foul" and hoping that some error can be found with the police officers' actions, then a deal MIGHT be the best path to follow.

We have been informed that the one office was just put back on the force after being on probation, and the other is a reserve that was a full time officer but let go due to the fact that he didn't know his job.

Ah, ya gotta love rumors. Not only do those "facts" mean zilch, you couldn't get them in front of a jury unless you can convince a judge that (a) a disciplinary history exists that casts a doubt on their honesty or activity in YOUR incident, and, (b) the judge agrees that the past disciplinary history is relevant.

How do we find out why the 1 was on probation and why the other is only a reserve now.

It is called a Brady motion. The relevant motion is reviewed by the court to see if there is some articulated reason to believe such a disciplinary record exists (it can't just be based on rumor or a fishing expedition) and the judge will review any documents that might exist to decide if they are relevant or not before he or she will release them to the defense.

Oregon may have a specific law to cover this, but the process is likely very similar to California's.

Did either one of the things have anything to do with the same situation we are in. We also know that the call the the police that evening was falsifed.

If the police were acting on good faith, and their actions were reasonable based upon the information they had and believed to be true at the time, then their actions are likely covered.

We have another pre-trial conference on March 11, 2010 any help we would be greatful for.

Since none of us know what the report says, and what the officers claim happened, we can be of little help. We do not know what the officers were there for, why they made entry, why people were arrested, what was alleged to have occurred ... etc.

Answers to ???

I first would like to state that we have never had any police issues in this town "being here for 30 years", none of us have records of any kind, nor have we ever been in any trouble with the law.

Police show up and 12:19 am 1/1/2010 stating a call came in the there where underage juviniles stumbling around in the street with beers in their hands.

There was no one outside except my husband watching the fireworks going off, no lights were on in the house and no movement was happeing in the house . There goes their probable cause.

They then ask what all the vehicles are parked outside are doing there.

Response, we have some friends spending the night over new years eve.

The next question, where is your son. That was asked 3 - 4 times. This is were we know that they came with an intended target, our son. The reported "caller" was no where near our home when the call was made.

Response, he is in his bedroom watching a movie, do you need to talk to him, I will go and get him. My husband had no intention of letting the police inside our home because they had no business to be in our home.

As my husband opened the front door and was trying to close it the reserve officer pushed it open (would not let my husband close the door). My husband was going to get our son and meet the officers on the front porch. There were 3 people that witnessed that.

NO PROABLE CAUSE, NO WARRANT, NOT INVITED IN, NO REASONABLE EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING WAS HAPPENING IN THE HOUSE, NOT CHASING A SUSPECT THAT CAME IN THE HOUSE, NO ONE WITH A WARRANT INSIDE THE HOUSE.

There was not any stumbling drunk juveniles in our home nor was there any beer cans/bottles in our home. Our son was given a citation "arrested" for an mip/mic for stepping on the back porch to spit his chew our while an officer stood there and watched him. In this case in the state of Oregon is is legal for a parent to purchase alcohol for their underaged child and allow them to consume it as long as they are on your property and a parent is home. In the first place he had no alcohol to consume while to officers where there. Not one person was drinking at any time while they invaded our home. So did they just right this citation to misuse their power?? Gee whiz I think so!!!

Miranda warnings were not issued to any of the "arrested", which infact no one knew they had been arrested until we got the police report. Oregon law states that mirandas are not required if you are free to leave, if you reasonably feel that if you did leave you would be in more trouble then you are not free to leave. No one was free to leave because they were told they would be tazered if the did. How much more clear can that be?

Officers did intentionally make a false report.

The reports states, The arrived at the home and advised my husband of the complaint. They state that my husband said he was unaware of any other juveniles at the residence. There were 5 vehicles parked outside our home so how could you deny that there was no at our house on the top of a hill on a dead end street the last house on the block. While they were speaking with my husband one officer noticed through the front window what appeared to be two subjects inside the residence appearing to be juveniles. The officer then states " How about we go inside and see if there are any juveniles drinking inside the residence?" My husbands response "Ok". None of these statements were made either from the police or my husband.

Tell me what part of that makes any sense. If he at first told them there were no juveniles at the residence why would he then in just a matter of minutes allow them into the home "to see if there were any juveniles drinking in the home????"

In my opinion it does not take a rocket scientest to read this and have a lot of questions about it.

Verbal abuse, they threatened for 3 hours if anyone runs we will tazer them, we have no problem doing that. They said to two of our guests that they were very bad parents and would take their son away over this incident, which in turn had the mother completely sick with worry believing that this might be true.

During these 3 hours why would any of them have run due to the fact that the officers had all of their ids and their vehicles were parked outside??? Why would they threaten to take any ones son away that had nothing to do with this incident? As for the comment of crying "foul" some folks may do this but in this case we are not. The officers behaivor while on our house was inexcuseable. They continued to poke a prod verbaly over the next 3 hours, with no provocation from anyone.

There were 4 officers that showed up. One of the officers that came knew some of the boys that were there. Within about 5 minutes of the officers being in our home he walked into the living room and stated to all of the kids, "I am sorry this is happening, I do not see anything wrong going on here and I will have nothing to do with it." He promptly left. How do you explain this not being in the report, or even mentioned that there where 4 officers there and not 3????? Gee whiz this must be a cover your ass policy.

As for the info on the officer "rumors" thank you for the info to find out if in fact any of this is true. If in fact any of this exists, was any of it in regards to misconduct, misuse of power, ect..? It would be interesting to know if the problem has occured in the past and action was taken against the officers, you might see a pattern here.

Police never acted in good faith as you can read above. When they arrived at our house, what the caller stated was taking place was false. You tell me where is the so called "reasonable good faith" with the inforamtion they were given?????

There were no juveniles outside the residence all evening!!!

Hope this clears up your ???

We are being forced to just accept the bad behavior of the local police in this town, and if they are not held accountalbe for this they will continue to do these things to anyone the choose. Would you want this to happen in your town and you would just have to live with it. I was told that if you don't report this you are just as bad as they are!!!!!

Police show up and 12:19 am 1/1/2010 stating a call came in the there where underage juviniles stumbling around in the street with beers in their hands.

Depending on the detail provided by the caller, this can be a legitimate concern and can give rise to probable cause. It might also depend on whether the caller was anonymous or someone that could be used as a witness.

The next question, where is your son. That was asked 3 - 4 times. This is were we know that they came with an intended target, our son. The reported "caller" was no where near our home when the call was made.

How do you know where the caller was? Why would someone nowhere near your home call about your son?

As my husband opened the front door and was trying to close it the reserve officer pushed it open (would not let my husband close the door). My husband was going to get our son and meet the officers on the front porch. There were 3 people that witnessed that.

For safety reasons, the cops tend not to like doors being closed while we stand out there ... it's a safety issue. Keeping the door open is not the same as making entry.

In this case in the state of Oregon is is legal for a parent to purchase alcohol for their underaged child and allow them to consume it as long as they are on your property and a parent is home.

Then you can testify to that fact in court. However, if stepping onto his back porch after having consumed alcohol constitutes a violation of the MIP laws in your state, then that may negate the whole thing. In some states the laws that cover a minor being in possession also cover a minor that has consumed alcohol. Do you recall the specific statute for which he is charged?

Miranda warnings were not issued to any of the "arrested", which infact no one knew they had been arrested until we got the police report.

Miranda is NOT required if you are arrested. Miranda is generally only required when a person is under custodial arrest AND is to be interrogated. Most arrests will never require Miranda rights to be read.

Oregon law states that mirandas are not required if you are free to leave, if you reasonably feel that if you did leave you would be in more trouble then you are not free to leave. No one was free to leave because they were told they would be tazered if the did. How much more clear can that be?

The law allows people to be detained even if not subject to Miranda. Miranda applies to custodial arrests, or to "force"used equivalent to that of a custodial arrest (such as being detained in handcuffs).

The officer then states " How about we go inside and see if there are any juveniles drinking inside the residence?" My husbands response "Ok". None of these statements were made either from the police or my husband.

Of course, that may be the recollection of the officer writing the report. Whether it is accurate or not would be a matter of dispute, but being incorrect is not the same as making a false report. Of course, you are free to consult an attorney to see if this is something worth pursuing in civil court ... I suspect it will not be, but, an attorney can tell you more about the common practice for such things in your state and how likely an award might be ... and how likely it might be to prove a case for intentionally filing a false report.

Tell me what part of that makes any sense. If he at first told them there were no juveniles at the residence why would he then in just a matter of minutes allow them into the home "to see if there were any juveniles drinking in the home????"

Many people make statements to us (the police) that do not make sense or contradict themselves. I gave up trying to ask "why?" more than 15 years ago.

Verbal abuse, they threatened for 3 hours if anyone runs we will tazer them, we have no problem doing that.

Not really abuse,simply saying you were not free to leave and a Taser could be deployed if someone ran. Now, I would have some questions about a three hour detention for a matter of minors drinking. If the only minor that had been drinking was your son, that length of time would be a huge problem. Now, if they found other minors on scene that had been drinking, and needed to get a hold of parents,that might be a reasonable time frame. Maybe.

During these 3 hours why would any of them have run due to the fact that the officers had all of their ids and their vehicles were parked outside???

Why, indeed ... been there, had it happen. Some people do odd things - especially if they had been drinking.

The officers behaivor while on our house was inexcuseable. They continued to poke a prod verbaly over the next 3 hours, with no provocation from anyone.

Have you made a personnel complaint? OR law may provide a time frame in which a complaint against an officer may be lodged, or a time frame in which the agency has to discipline officers. If this happened three months ago, this clock may be running out.

There were 4 officers that showed up. One of the officers that came knew some of the boys that were there.

Okay ...so, there WERE juveniles present that had been drinking?? Maybe the caller was NOT off base?

Were the parents of all these juveniles at the house?

Within about 5 minutes of the officers being in our home he walked into the living room and stated to all of the kids, "I am sorry this is happening, I do not see anything wrong going on here and I will have nothing to do with it." He promptly left. How do you explain this not being in the report, or even mentioned that there where 4 officers there and not 3????? Gee whiz this must be a cover your ass policy.

It certainly lends itself to beg the question why he was not mentioned. It could also be that he had another call. If you do make a civil suit, then be sure to call that officer to testify as to what he might have said or at least why he left.

As for the info on the officer "rumors" thank you for the info to find out if in fact any of this is true. If in fact any of this exists, was any of it in regards to misconduct, misuse of power, ect..? It would be interesting to know if the problem has occured in the past and action was taken against the officers, you might see a pattern here.

It is generally no easy task to obtain personnel records of discipline. A review of the relevant documents in a successful Brady motion is generally held in camera - that is, reviewed by the judge out of view of the courtroom and even the attorneys. If relevant, the judge may allow all or part of it in. But,you can be assured the agency will fight any release of these documents. Even if no such record exists, they will fight even that disclosure as a matter of policy. ... At least that is what we do here and I presume the same is done in OR.

Police never acted in good faith as you can read above. When they arrived at our house, what the caller stated was taking place was false. You tell me where is the so called "reasonable good faith" with the inforamtion they were given?????

That depends on the information. It sounds like the caller may have been right about juveniles drinking.

There were no juveniles outside the residence all evening!!!

But, the police may not have had to rely on that, they might have been able to rely on the call. Again, a lot will revolve around what the police knew and how reliable the information might have seemed at the time. Police actions are viewed in terms of what the police knew at the time, not what the facts were determined to be later on.

We are being forced to just accept the bad behavior of the local police in this town, and if they are not held accountalbe for this they will continue to do these things to anyone the choose.

You have a variety of options available to you. Even if a civil suit is not a viable option, there are complaints to the agency, complaints to the city council or city manager, reports to the media, etc. There are actions that can be taken.

There are certainly questions here - most notably the 3 hour detention and an arrest for someone on a backyard porch? Unless the back porch is exposed to the general public, in an unfenced yard, that's not really in public. A complaint may well be in order, but I am not sure that any case can be made for a "civil rights" action under federal or state law. But, you can speak to an attorney to see if the damages are worth pursuing.

What kind of a spin can we use??

The details and I qoute "The officers responeded to an annoymous call of a liquor violation at (address). The caller stated there appeared to be several juveniles drinking in front of the residence." I would assume as you put it this was the information they had to rely on at the time of the call, which in this case was not happening before or when they arrived. When they arrived upon the scene, there was only my huband outside watching the illegal fireworks down the hill. So I my mind there went their probable cause for taking it any further than just speaking to my husband. I have no doubt that the caller will not be used as a witness.
I have no doubt that the caller was no where near our home at they time of the call. Fisrt our closest neighbor is my sister in law, which was not home that evening and the next closest I have know for over 30 years and would never call any officers to our home unless it was a dior emergency. We live in a real hillbilly town. One of the head hillbillies has decided its our sons turn to take a kickin. They recently have loosened the lugnuts on his truck, thats one of there favorite things to do and then the posted a gay ad on craigs list for our son listing our home number and his cell number. We decided to call the police and let them handle these issues. They police talked to all of them and told them if anything else happened they would all be arrested for harassment. Things died down for a while and now this. One of the girls that was at our house texted the head hillbilly and thanked him for getting here into trouble when the police were sent to our house, the reply text stated "sorry I didn't know you were going to be there". She had told the head hillbilly she was going to be somewhere else that evening in order not to get any one riled up. Also one of the officers stated "don't be surprised if you recognize the number". With all that you can spin it anyway you would like, but it still will not change the facts.
I guess you didn't understand the first time I siad this, they unlawfully entered our home. You can spin it again anyway you would like. They didn't just keep a door open, they pushed it open while my husband was closing the door to go inside to get our son and they didn't stop there, they came on in and made themselves comfortable. I am assured that this is what you would call entry, not "keeping the door open". NO PROBABLE CAUSE WHEN THEY ARRIVED, NO WARRANT, NOT INVITED IN, NOT CHASING A SUSPECT THAT WENT INTO THE HOME, NO ONE WITH A WARRANT THEY WERE PURSUING RAN INTO OUR HOME, NO REASONABLE (NOT ANY)EVIDENCE TO PURSUE THE CALLERS ACCUSATIONS, NO DOMESTICE VIOLENCE TAKING PLACE IN THE HOME. Good God what on earth does it take to keep the police out of your home with no cause to be in the home. I will not accept the fact that they were acting in good faith with this call. They came to play billy bad ..and apparently the "code of blue" can get by with it. I must be so ignorant to think that police could be held accountable for their actions/behavior. I think you all may have an excuss for everthing and if you don't you will make one up! I have never in my 42 years ever thought there were bad police. I have been corrected. In fact I am not really sure why I am even telling you any of this. I have no doubt anymore that some day you will probably use this banter back and forth for your own advantage and you really have no intentions to help someone that under that "code of blue" just could be getting the shaft! I am not looking for a technicality or a way out of anything. If the police in fact do their jobs leagally I would have no problem what so ever with them. Unfortunatly in this case they decided not to. And the million dollar question, where can the citizen get help to rid the police force of "rouge" "bad" "dirty" cops? You can not deny that this is a problem everywhere, but be it your luck the judicial system all relies on one another to butter their bread, therefore no one will turn on another be it right, wrong or indifferent.
Our son was charged with an MIP. As the report states he was in there sight at all times and stepped on to the back porch which to the police made being at the residence null and void. And yes the yard is fenced. He never left our property. And the officer that "arrested" him stated "How does it feel getting a $500.00 Ticket in your own living room". I would take that as being a smart ass bulling cop that knew these kids wouldn't push back at them. These kids are good kids, not in trouble with the law, good grades in school, not out driving drunk and doing stupid stuff to be into trouble. The ages from our son down is 20 - 17 years. As I stated before this kind of verbal crap came out of their mouths for 3 hours in our house!
My understanding after researching is that during a "custodial arrest or iterrogation" that if the person being questioned is in custody (is not free to leave, suspected of commiting a crime) the must be mirandized. The do not have to miranda you if the have the answers they need and don't need to question you. These kids did not voulunter any information to the officers. The officers were also asking "pre-arrest questions" and my understanding is that they must stop the interview if the person(s) are making incriminating statements. Of course no one in the house knew any of there rights in this situation and did trust the police to "go by the book" good grief what a joke that has turned out to be. We haven't got the new book yet.
You stated that people make statements that don't make sense and contradict themselves which I do believe is true, but to make up an entire conversation that never even took place? The only reason they had to make up the first paragraph of the report was to cover their own ass when it came to unlawful entry. I wish we could leagally tape any conversation that took place between us and the police, that my just fix a few things real quick. Do you mean to tell me that when they sat and wrote this report, which I am sure was not long after they left our house that they could have somehow forgotten what took place. That is the biggest load of crap todate. They wrote the report knowing full well what did and did not take place. They chose to cover their own asses "code of blue" in order to get it pushed through the legal system. God forbid they would admit any wrong doing. This would be the reason for the one officer leaving, he was smart enough to know that what they were doing was wrong and wanted nothing to do with it. And as for leaving for another call, how did I know you might just say that. You will always have that excuse as an officer. But then how do you explain 8 people testifing to what he said in the living room. Bad thing about this is he is a good cop and he must follow the "code of blue" or pay a hefty price I am sure. That is really a shame that a good cop has to be surrounded by the rotten ones, oh thats right he could move on a go somewhere else!
I guess I could ask you why? Why would anyone take your word for anything if in fact you lied and contradicted yourself through out writing an entire police report. Are you telling me that there is to be no questioning your motives when a police report just doesn't make any sense? So lets put the shoe on the other foot and maybe get some real answers about a police officers accountablities?
You may not call it abuse but I do. There were no kids running from the home, they simply asked if they could use the restroom. Once again were going to play billy bad ass cops and play off of each others remarks just to pick at the kids, I guess let them know who was boss? They kept telling our son they knew he had left the property. They kept telling the other two what bad parents they were and they would take their son away. What did you say you called this??? Keep in mind there was no provocation. And they want respect from people? Good luck from now on.
There were 7 other kids at our home that evening. The ages are stated up above. Some of them had been to parties else where and showed up at our house to I guess call it a night, mind you 5 minutes before the police showed up. The kids under 18 parents where called and they came to get them, all of those kids stated to the police and to their parents that they did not drink at our home but rather somewhere else and just showed up at our house.
And with a personnel complaint I have no idea how to do this. If I had the information I would do it in and instant. I would not like the time to run out simply because I was not informed. I have been asking questions since the 1st.
I nor did anyone say that there were no junveniles at our house. That was one of there fabrications. Where did you come up with "so there were juveniles present that had been drinking." Just because our sons friends were over does not imply that they were drinking in our home.

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.

IMPORTANT NOTICEFreeAdvice.com has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding information and "advice" free since 1995 with thousands of professionally prepared and reviewed articles, questions and answers in more than 100 categories in the Question and Answerpages at FreeAdvice.com. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS AND OTHER FORUM PAGES WERE NOT REVIEWED BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF OR ATTORNEYS AT FREEADVICE.COM and are provided AS IS. The FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting on the Forums or the identity or qualifications of any person asking questions or responding on the Forums. Use of the Forums is subject to our Disclaimer and our Terms and Conditions of use which prohibit advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, or false, defamatory, abusive, vulgar, or harassing messages, and subject violators to a fee for each improper posting. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of FreeAdvice. Information on FreeAdvice or a Forum is never a substitute for personal advice from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction you have retained to represent you. To locate an attorney visit AttorneyPages.com. Copyright since 1995 by Advice Company. All Rights Reserved.